verification-before-completion
Skill3 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Hard gate before claiming work is complete. Use when about to say "done", "fixed", "passing", "ready to commit", "ready to merge" — requires running the verification command FRESH and reading actual output before any success claim. Composed by polish, incremental-implementation, and pr-review.
189 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- DemonDamon/AgenticXtheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- roundpilot/superpowers-antigravitytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- REPOZY/superpowers-optimizedtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lingyired/status-triotheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- DJtx001/ai-coding-playbooktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Ai-assistant-KIRA/antigravity-harnesstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use chinese-code-review, chinese-commit-conventions and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
Leodorareluctant259Skillchinese-code-review
中文代码审查规范——在保持专业严谨的同时,用符合国内团队文化的方式给出有效反馈
Also in 8 projects that use this
Leodorareluctant259Skillchinese-commit-conventions
中文 Git 提交规范 — 适配国内团队的 commit message 规范和 changelog 自动化
Also in 8 projects that use this
obraSkilldiagnosing-superpowers
Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.
Also in 20 projects that use this
jh941213Skilldocs-ci
문서 CI(링크·OpenAPI lint·breaking 게이트·mermaid 검증)나 문서 드리프트 감지(docs.yaml 신선도 검사)를 설치하거나 돌릴 때 사용. 문서 내용 작성은 docs-architecture·docs-interfaces·docs-manuals.
Also in 3 projects that use this
jh941213Skilldocs-interfaces
API·이벤트 인터페이스 문서(OpenAPI·swagger·AsyncAPI 명세, 엔드포인트 레퍼런스, API 구성도·시퀀스, API CHANGELOG)를 만들거나 코드와 맞출 때 사용. 시스템 구성도는 docs-architecture, API 설계 원칙은 api-design-principles.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +3 more from Leodorareluctant259
- +4 more from jh941213
Other versions189 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- danielcherubini/skills★ 1411% same
Wrote their own version · 188
- obra/superpowers★ 314ksame name
- jnMetaCode/superpowers-zh★ 8.4ksame name
- openai/plugins★ 7.8ksame name
- farm-fe/farm★ 5.6ksame name
- lingyired/status-trio★ 1.8ksame name
- GanyuanRan/Aegis★ 1.4ksame name
- pcvelz/superpowers★ 1.3ksame name
- DemonDamon/AgenticX★ 1ksame name
- coco-research/coco★ 797same name
- pedronauck/skills★ 649same name
178 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository26 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- code-simplificationSkill
- dcgSkill
- editorial-reviewSkill
- journalSkill
- readme-updateSkill
- security-and-hardeningSkill
- session-retroSkill
- autopilotSkill
- blunder-huntSkill
- brainstormSkill
- convergence-detectSkill
- deslopSkill
- dispatch-parallelSkill
- doc-reviewSkill
- dreamSkill
- incremental-implementationSkill
- planning-and-task-breakdownSkill
- polishSkill
- pr-reviewSkill
- refactor-planSkill
- scope-checkSkill
- security-auditSkill
- spec-driven-developmentSkill
- unstuckSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.
10
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
Not a finding-triage gate.
- Distinctive: line 17
Not human ceremony layered on agent output.
- Distinctive: line 18
Not a process for everything.
- Distinctive: line 26
Before saying "tests pass" / "linter clean" / "build succeeds" / "bug fixed"
- Distinctive: line 28
Before opening / merging a PR
- Very specific: line 29
After auto-fixers (eslint --fix, prettier, etc.) — tools fail silently more than you think
- Very specific: line 30
When polish or incremental-implementation says "clean" — convergence ≠ correctness
- Distinctive: line 31
After ANY agent (subagent, swarm, etc.) reports success — verify independently
- Distinctive: line 66
If you catch yourself typing any of these, STOP and re-verify:
- Distinctive: line 78
When emitting the claim, attach the evidence:
- Distinctive: line 92
If verification fails, state truth + evidence:
- Distinctive: line 118
Don't perform this gate on tasks that have no executable artifact.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 177 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
verification-before-completion
Adapted from
obra/superpowers/skills/verification-before-completionunder the MIT License. Copyright (c) Jesse Vincent. Modifications by kaijutsu maintainers — pared down for kaijutsu's "trust the swarm" stance and reframed as a primitive other skills compose.
A discipline gate. Stops you from claiming work is done based on vibes. Forces evidence.
This skill is composed by other skills via deps.skills. Also directly invocable when you catch yourself about to say "should pass".
What this is NOT
- Not a finding-triage gate. v0.7 quality fingerprinting + multi-agent swarm consensus already handles that.
- Not human ceremony layered on agent output. The agents are trusted; what we're verifying is YOUR CODE, not the agents' findings.
- Not a process for everything. A README typo fix doesn't need a verification gate. Use judgment — see "When to skip" below.
What this IS
A short checklist between "I think this is done" and "I'm telling the user it's done". The cost of a stale claim is high: lost trust, wasted review cycles, debugging time tomorrow on bugs you said were fixed today.
When to invoke
- Before saying "tests pass" / "linter clean" / "build succeeds" / "bug fixed"
- Before committing
- Before opening / merging a PR
- After auto-fixers (eslint --fix, prettier, etc.) — tools fail silently more than you think
- When
polishorincremental-implementationsays "clean" — convergence ≠ correctness - After ANY agent (subagent, swarm, etc.) reports success — verify independently
When to skip
- Pure prose / comment / doc edits with no executable impact
- Research / explore / read-only work
- The verification command itself is what's being changed (chicken-and-egg — note this and let user verify)
The gate
BEFORE claiming any status:
1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute the FULL command, fresh, this turn (not "I ran it earlier")
3. READ: Full output. Check exit code. Count failures.
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
NO → state actual status with evidence
YES → state claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: emit the claimClaim → command mapping
| Claim | Verifying command | Not sufficient |
| Tests pass | full test run (go test ./..., pytest, etc.) → 0 failures | "I ran it earlier", "should pass" |
| Linter clean | full linter run → 0 errors | partial check, single-file run |
| Build succeeds | full build → exit 0 | linter passing, types check |
| Bug fixed | regression test for the original symptom passes | code changed, "looks right" |
| Regression test works | red-then-green cycle verified | green on first run only |
| Subagent succeeded | git diff shows expected changes | subagent's "success" report |
| Spec satisfied | line-by-line against spec acceptance criteria | tests passing |
Forbidden phrasings (you're rationalizing)
If you catch yourself typing any of these, STOP and re-verify:
- "should work now"
- "probably passes"
- "seems to work"
- "I'm confident"
- "linter is happy" (linter ≠ tests ≠ build)
- "the agent said it succeeded"
- any victory phrase ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!") before the verify command ran
Output format
When emitting the claim, attach the evidence:
✅ ran: go test ./internal/findings/...
result: ok 6/6 tests · 0.4s
"verification: tests pass"vs the broken pattern:
❌ "All tests pass!" (no command shown, no output, vibes only)If verification fails, state truth + evidence:
❌ ran: go test ./internal/findings/...
result: 1 failure (TestRecordRun_RequiresMeta/missing_RunID)
"verification failed: 1 test broken; debugging next"Composition
polish invokes this AFTER the convergence-detect "clean" signal, BEFORE emitting "polish complete". Catches the silent-fail tail where the loop converges but tests are actually broken.
incremental-implementation invokes this transitively (via its polish dep) per slice, before marking the slice shippable.
pr-review does NOT yet compose this primitive — listed as a v0.7.x candidate. The natural integration is a pre-swarm local-diff sanity check ("claim: my changes compile and tests pass") to save swarm budget on broken builds, but the pr-review skill hasn't been wired yet.
The kaijutsu-specific edge
Pair with polish's convergence loop:
- Convergence-detect: "no new signal" — agents stopped finding issues
- Verification gate: "but the code still has to actually run"
Both can be true OR false independently. Verification catches the case where polish converged on a nice-looking diff that doesn't compile. Cheap, high-leverage.
Anti-pattern: overusing this
Don't perform this gate on tasks that have no executable artifact. Don't add fake verification commands ("ran: cat README.md"). The gate's value is preventing real claim-vs-reality drift; ceremonial application dilutes the signal.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

